It is not so many of US that would do that - it is the Greek system at the OP's particular school. I am guessing that 99% of the people posting on this thread would not do that and also find the concept repugnant. So before you get on your soapbox, read and comprehend the whole thread.

And there are certain tattoos and piercings that I would judge someone based on.

Not a small foot tattoo, though, unless it's of something offensive.

And even I wouldn't say someone shouldn't ever get a tattoo, but at the very least, think ahead and make good decisions. Living in the moment is great and I encourage the heck out of it, but you won't always be 19, and tattoos are permanent (unless you opt for the laser thing, but I can still see Billy Bob on Angelina's arm).

Good decision-making ability is an important trait to have and show at any stage of your life and getting that full-arm tattoo that looked bitchin' during spring break will look absolutely absurd when you're 36 if you're trying to be taken seriously in a professional environment. So girls, if you want a little tat, go for the hip, upper thigh, somewhere you can cover when you need to. Top of the foot tattoos? Why? First of all, ouch, and secondly, unless you're going to wear fugly coverall shoes the rest of your life or invest in good makeup and wear it every day, that thing will be staring up at you and everyone else a good part of the time every day. Think it through is all I'm saying.

Amen.

A friend of mine has a hideous astrology tattoo on her shoulder. Covers the whole shoulder and she got it when she was 18. Her mother flipped when she saw it.

It was ugly then but is EXTREMELY ugly now. Faded. 12 years old and her personality doesn't even fit it anymore. Now she can't wear backless or halter top gowns at a formal event in her professional crowd. Something she of course didn't care about when she was 18.

However, also be wary of areas that may be augmented during pregnancy! :eek:

As a member of a sorority at an sec school, I see your dilemma.

In my opinion, use your own discretion, but you know what these schools are like.

If I were you, I would pretend I'm already an active and think of it that way. Say you're an active getting ready to for recruitment at an sec school and what would most likely be done? You would cover your visible tatoos, no big deal. It's just protocol, like in an interview, because that's mostly what recruitment is, on both sides.

I personally would have no problem offering a bid to a girl with a small, tasteful, but visible tatoo that was not covered up during recruitment, but all schools and all chapters are different.

I don't think anyone will hate you if you're part of their chapter and you have a small tatoo, but recruitment is a different playing field. You don't want to regret anything.

It depends. One of my friends got a half circle design of hearts and flowers and vines around her stomach when she was 18 and after her first kid 10 years later, she wore her pre-pregnancy jeans out of the hospital. Three years later, the tattoo still looks good... Of course, she just has amazing genes!

People are denied bids every year because of lots of things that might seem ridiculous. I would bet that you can even think of a less than stellar reason your chapter cut someone. I believe someone said earlier that when you are cutting over 300 girls after round one, you grasp at many different ways to help you do that.

well my org doesnt rush and doesnt have quotas or whatever the case may be like i read about other orgs having so we dont deny bids for riduculous reasons. i've seen people try but to my knowledge it hasnt happened in my chapter. Even if it did i wouldnt condone it. But then again like i said, we dont have any quotas or rush so our applicant pool doesnt require us to deny hundreds of people, if that makes sense to you. I guess to truly understand the quandry at hand i'd have to be in the same position as other people and vice versa.

Obviously if the tattoo is one that is offensive and reflects an attitude that contradicts the mission and purpose of the org then yes, i can understand denying a bid but just for the plain fact that the interest or pnm has one shouldnt be the deciding factor in my mind. everyone is entitled to their opinion and if that is how a particular chapter or org overall operates than to each his or her own.

So, your org takes anyone who walks through the door? Interesting . . .
and might I add that NPC membership selection is 1.) private and 2.) more complicated than a tattoo. The op asked a question, and it was answered realistically. In competitive recruitments small things may matter. EVERYONE makes judgements on seemingly small things - if you apply for some jobs a tattoo will count against you. Whether it is fair or not, the fact is that the first impression you make is hard to overcome if it is negative.

http://www.theburningbiscuit.com/Pic...ividuality.jpg

dont get your panties in a bunch sweetheart. like i said to someone else on this thread, i dont condone denying a bid to anyone who may potentially be an asset to the org whether that means giving bids to 1 or 1000. But i ALSO stated that my organization does not rush or have any type of quota so i dont have to find reasons to deny someone a bid because my applicant pool doesnt exceed a number that i may have to adhere to. Likewise if that is how a chapter or organization chooses to operate than to each his or her own. perhaps you did not read and comprehend my post for its intended meaning. Whatever the case may be, you need to relax.

More specific to the tattoo issue, if the tattoo does reflect an attitude that is possesed by the interested lady that is in direct conflict with organizations goals, mission and or purpose then that IS grounds for not extending a bid.

wooooo-saaaaaah okay, wooooo-saaaaaah!:D

I dont know if you were talking about me but if you were, of course the answer is no. We take ladies that show a legitimate interest in our organization, live their life according to the morals set forth by our org, and will be a benefit to our sisterhood. c'mon now. just because we dont deny people for frivolous reasons (which is the point i've been trying to make by the way) doesnt mean we dont deny people at all. as im sure is true with most organizations, greek or not.

Matsimela - I appreciate your thoughts on tattoos, rush, etc. but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "I guess to really understand the quandry at hand, I would have to be in the same position as other people."
The type of Greek system the OP is involved in DOES have rush, quotas, etc and it is offensive for you to pass judgement on an organization you are not familiar with. We are here to help, support, and learn from each other. I am sure you did not mean to sound so accusing in your original comment.

As you stated, you have NO IDEA what goes into NPC membership selection. You admitted that, but can't seem to stop commenting. You are not helping the original poster - so what is your point?
NPC groups have literally hundreds - sometimes thousands - of young women who want to be members. In order to preserve the sisterhood that is such an important part of our groups, we have to limit our size. Just because that isn't your GLO's problem doesn't mean you should comment on those groups who do have it. We can have so many otherwise qualified women coming thorugh recruitment that seemingly small things like tattoos might come into play. And again, appearance does count, in recruitment, in job interviews, in life. It is neither good nor bad, it just IS. And if your appearance is going to reflect on our group, then it is something that has to be considered. It shouldn't, imho, be the most important, but realistically speaking it is a factor. Everyone here has stated that it shouldn't cost you a bid, but it could count against you. So, original poster, covering it up would be in your best interest.